What's Up With HTTP? - mnot · What's Up With HTTP? Mark Nottingham Principal Technical Yahoo! IETF HTTPbis WG Chair

What's Up With HTTP?Mark Nottingham

Principal Technical Yahoo! <[email protected]> IETF HTTPbis WG Chair <[email protected]>

Agenda• HTTP in Theory: The Standards

• HTTP in Practice: The Implementations

• New Stuff: Fixing the Suck

(poorly hidden) Agenda• Inform what HTTP (the protocol) can do

• Inform what HTTP implementations can't (yet) do

• Encourage implementers to close the gap

HTTP in Theory: The Standards(and some history)

HTTP circa 1996• HTTP/0.9 fading quickly

• HTTP/1.0 taking off

• HTTP/1.1 to contain the damage

• virtual hosting

• persistent connections

• caching

• HTTP-NG discussions already underway

• binary (i.e. length-delimited headers)

• generic

• ...

HTTP circa 1996• Typical use

• Browser client, static or CGI content

• GET, POST

• WebDAV: Glimmer in Whitehead’s eye

• Services: huh?

2002: BCP56• “On the use of HTTP as a Substrate”

• Brought about by new (ab)use; e.g., IPP

• Reasonable advice for the IETF community, but failed to foresee “services” and “Web 2.0”

• Codified distaste with non-browser uses

• A new port for every app

• Probably a new URI scheme too

• Currently being considered for deprecation

HTTP in 2009• HTTP/2.0 didn’t happen

• WS-* debacle unfortunately did

• PEP turned into SOAP

• “RESTful” APIs

• Pressure to extend

• Bidirectional communication (AJAX, BOSH...)

• New Web protocols (OAuth, CORS...)

• Explosion of implementations

• new servers, clients

• new frameworks, APIs

• Interop is OK for "traditional" usage, but...

• More implementations = more variance

• Use cases are getting more exotic

• Extensions are proliferating

• Underlying design is poorly documented

HTTPbis: Why• IETF Working Group to

• incorporate errata

• clarify ambiguities

• document extensibility

• improve interoperability

• I.e., writing the recipe down more clearly

• Specifications need to outlive their creators

• Align theory with reality

• NOT to extend HTTP (but wait...)

HTTPbis: Who• “Core” Implementers

• Apache (editing), Microsoft, Mozilla, Apple, Opera, Curl, Squid, WinGate, Serf

• Extension Authors

• MetaLink, OAuth, WebDAV, PATCH

• Large Web Operators

• PayPal, Google, Yahoo!

• Security Experts

• Adam Barth, Amit Klein

• The “Old Guard”

• W3C, HTTP authors, URI authors

HTTPbis: What• Problem: RFC2616 is 176 pages of text/plain

• Solution: split it up

• p1: messaging

• p2: semantics

• p3: payload

• p4: conditional requests

• p5: ranges

• p6: caching

• p7: authentication

HTTPbis: fixing...• Currently ~200 issues, like

• editorial: ABNF conversion (no implied LWS)

• procedural: Registries for status, methods

• security: WS between header name and colon

• i18n: Header charset and folding

• html5: Is Content Sniffing allowed?

• protocol: Really, only two connections?

• semantic: What is a PUT response w/ETag?

• caching: Is the method part of the cache key?

HTTPbis: Status• Editors: Roy Fielding, Julian Reschke, Yves

Lafon, Mark Nottingham

• Currently on draft -08

• Major rewrites in progress

• p1 messaging

• p5 caching

• “six months”

• Also informal place for discussion of new extensions, liaison with HTML5 work, etc.

HTTP in Practice:The Implementations

Implementations• Clients

• IE, Mozilla, Opera, Safari, wget, curl, serf, Perl, Python, Ruby, Java

• Abstractions: XmlHttpRequest, Prototype.js, Flash APIs

• Servers

• Apache, IIS, Lighttpd, Tornado, your router, phone and fridge

• Abstractions: filesystems, CGI, WSGI, Rack, Servlet

• Intermediaries

• Squid, Traffic Server, Blue Coat, ISA, HAProxy, L7 load balancers, firewalls

• Not many abstractions (yet)

• 20%-30% of Web traffic goes through a proxy

• Caches in clients and intermediaries

• starting to show up in Python, Ruby...

HTTP Versions• Most everything these days is HTTP/1.1,

except...

• Squid (full 1.1 coming)

• wget

• a few libraries

• very old browsers, servers, libraries

• That’s OK

Core Methods• GET, POST - universally supported

• PUT, DELETE

• A few clients can’t generate (e.g., Safari2 XHR)

• Intermediaries can be configured to block, but usually aren’t (except the paranoid and mobile)

• Biggest limitation is W3C languages

• XSLT, HTML forms

• Result: X-HTTP-Method header (Google) or query params (e.g., ?real-method=POST)

“Advanced” Methods• OPTIONS

• Hard to configure in servers

• Isn’t cacheable... oops.

• Result: only used for esoteric protocols (*DAV)

• Extension methods - FOO

• A number of clients don’t allow (e.g., XHR)

• Intermediaries often block (e.g., Squid, L4 balancers)

• Result: This probably isn’t so horrible

URIs• Mobile clients limit to as small as 256

• Browsers

• IE: ~2k

• The rest: really really big

• Intermediaries are OK up to about 4k; some go higher

• Servers can be configured (or replaced)

• Result: people putting queries in POSTs

• application-specific and frameworks

• frameworks doing this leads to gratuitous tunnelling

• HTTPbis recommendation: 8k

Headers• Some length limits (e.g. 20k total in Squid)

• Almost no-one handles line continuations

• Result: effectively profiled out

• Disallowed by latest HTTPbis changes

• Connection header control: not great

• Result: extending protocol difficult

• Trailers aren’t well-supported at all

• Result: debug, status more difficult

Partial Content• Content-Range / 206

• Biggest use: PDF

• Some caches don’t store partial content

• e.g., Squid

• Flash URL API can access ranges, but VideoPlayer, etc. don’t use it

• Result:$vidID = $_GET["vidID"];$vidPosition = $_GET["vidPosition"];

Redirection• Most* current browsers will preserve POST

when they get a 307 Temporary Redirect

• ... but not PUT or DELETE

• ... and not a 301 or 302

• * except Safari - it doesn’t even do 307

• HTTPbis redefining 301, 302 to reflect reality

Connection Handling• Browsers limited to two concurrent

connections to each server

• ouch!

• Result: BATCH, hosting on multiple names, etc.

• Being fixed in HTTPbis

• no particular limit

• IE8 already running with this

Pipelining• Clients

• Only Opera does by default (lots of heuristics)

• The brave can turn it on in Mozilla

• A few libraries allow (e.g., Serf)

• Most intermediaries will be OK with it, but won’t forward

• Many servers handle it just fine; a few don’t

• Risks: interleaved or out-of-order responses

• Predominant use today: SVN (thanks to Serf)

• Result: “waterfall” of requests; CSS spriting

Cookies• There is no cookie specification.

• Netscape isn’t complete

• RFC2109 doesn’t reflect current practice

• Opera only major implementation of RFC2965

• Parsing raw dates is painful• Set-Cookie: a=1; Expires=Thu, 24 July 2008 00:00:00

• requires special case handling

• Result: libraries required.

• New IETF Working Group contemplated

New Stuff(a.k.a. fixing the suck)

Authentication• Basic is interoperable, but not secure

• Digest is more secure, but not terribly interoperable

• Many newer requirements not addressed

• Phishing

• Delegated auth

• OAuth IETF Working Group

• "two-legged"

• Other efforts still coalescing

Security Model• Origin Header

• Strict Transport Security (STS)

• Content Security Policy (CSP)

• Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS)

• Server auth without SSL?

• W3C may be starting a WG.

PATCH• “Restful” APIs are starting to abuse PUT

• “update that with this...”

• PATCH allows you to apply a diff to a resource

• Currently in IETF Last Call

Prefer Header• Lets a client state what it wants;

• Full content in response body

• Status message in response body

• No response body

• E.g., POST /order-handler

• Currently a (quiet) Internet-Draft

Link Header• Under-developed part of the Web arch:

typed links

• Advertise/discover links in HTTP headers

• “this invalidates <foo>”

• “the previous one is <bar>”

• “edit this over at <baz>”

• In RFC2068, taken out of RFC2616

• In IETF Last Call

HyBi: Bidirectional HTTP

• "Short-Term" Solution: Comet

• Long polling optimisations

• Connection use hints

• Intermediary coordination

• "Long term": WebSockets

• New, very low-level protocol

• Already in browsers

• Likely to be an IETF WG very soon

Better Transport• head-of-line blocking STILL an issue

• Pipelining isn’t well-supported, and doesn’t completely solve the problem

• HTTP doesn’t guarantee integrity

• except with Content-MD5 (which no one does)

• HTTP over TCP sucks

• on lossy links

• on high latency links

• on low bandwidth links

HTTP/2.0?• Re-framing HTTP semantics onto better

transport

• HTTP-over-SCTP (uDel, Cisco)

• Better over long-distance / lossy nets

• WAKA (Roy Fielding)

• Still probably TCP

• Allow new message patterns, more efficient implementation and network use

Take-Aways• Implementations are (obviously) usable, but

• They sometimes impose arbitrary limits

• They don’t expose some important controls

• HTTPbis is an opportunity to

• get implementers together

• clarify ambiguities

• improve interop

• make HTTP a more stable basis for the next 10+ years

• We need to start thinking about HTTP evolution NOW.